Automated Summary
Key Facts
Leonel Pinilla Perez, a lawful permanent resident, was removed from the U.S. in 2011 after 1993 cocaine and 2000-2009 marijuana possession convictions. New York state later revised its marijuana laws, allowing vacatur of his marijuana convictions in 2021. Pinilla discovered this change through a lawyer in 2021 and filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing his 1993 conviction was no longer categorically removable under federal law. The BIA denied the motion, citing insufficient diligence, but the Second Circuit found the BIA's reasoning inadequate and remanded for further review.
Issues
The central legal question is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) improperly denied equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen removal proceedings, based on the petitioner's failure to demonstrate 'reasonable diligence' after discovering a change in state law that vacated prior marijuana convictions and intervening federal case law affecting his removability.
Holdings
- The court dismissed Pinilla's petition for review challenging the BIA's denial of his motion to reconsider the original removal order as moot, because the grant of the petition to reopen rendered the reconsideration request unnecessary.
- The court granted Leonel Pinilla Perez's petition challenging the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings, finding that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to provide sufficient reasoning regarding whether Pinilla exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing equitable tolling after an intervening change in law. The case was remanded for further consideration consistent with the opinion.
Remedies
- The court DISMISSES as moot the petition for review challenging the BIA's denial of the motion to reconsider the original order (No. 24-3151).
- The court GRANTS the petitioner's challenge to the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen and REMANDS the case for further consideration consistent with the opinion.
Legal Principles
The court held that equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline for motions to reopen removal proceedings requires demonstrating reasonable diligence during the period sought to be tolled. The BIA's denial of equitable tolling was invalidated for insufficient reasoning, emphasizing that diligence is measured against what a petitioner could reasonably be expected to do under their circumstances, particularly after an intervening change in law.
Precedent Name
- Williams v. Garland
- Rashid v. Mukasey
- Goulart v. Garland
- Poradisova v. Gonzales
- Bracey v. Superintendent Rockview SCI
- Castellanos-Ventura v. Garland
- Baldayaque v. United States
- Garcia Pinach v. Bondi
- Watson v. United States
Cited Statute
- New York Criminal Procedure Law
- Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
- New York Penal Law
Judge Name
- Lohier
- Wesley
- Merriam
Passage Text
- the BIA abused its discretion in finding that Pinilla failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing his motion to reopen.
- In order to equitably toll the filing deadline for a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must demonstrate that he or she has exercised due diligence during the entire period he or she seeks to toll.
- The diligence required for equitable tolling purposes is therefore 'reasonable diligence, not maximum feasible diligence.'